Ann Arbor schools split from architectural firm

Even as they unanimously approved a separation agreement with the architectural firm Fanning Howey Wednesday night, members of the Ann Arbor school board continued their silence on the reasons for the split.

They also did not disclose the terms of the agreement, including how much money the district will end up paying the firm, which had a $5.7 million contract to design renovations at the district's elementary and middle schools included in the 2004 bond projects.

Superintendent Todd Roberts also did not want to discuss any problems with the firm, instead saying the decision to separate was "an agreement between both sides." He said it had to "do with the relationship" between the district and the firm.

He also did not release a copy of the agreement. "I'll have to check with the district's lawyer," he said when asked for one.

Multiple e-mails previously obtained by The News under the Freedom of Information Act show the depth of the problems the district had with the firm. In those e-mails, district administrators blame Fanning Howey for repeated design problems.

In past interviews, Fanning Howey has denied those claims and has blamed the districts for delays and other problems.

Fanning Howey officials could not be reached for comment this morning.

The actual decision to have Fanning Howey stop any work on future phase was told to the firm in September 2005, e-mails show.

"... the decision was supported by the AAPS team and was due to the amount of AAPS resources consumed in phase 1, the missed summer construction window, the repeated concerns on the (multi-purpose rooms) ... and the lack of immediate and sustained improvement despite numerous meetings and discussions," then-district consultant Jack Baker wrote in an e-mail to then-school attorney Cameron Piggott on Sept. 21, 2005.

At that point, the district had been through one phase of work and told Fanning Howey not to do any more on the rest of the phases. However, the district did not hire a replacement architect for more than a year, leading to delays that meant the district will get less for its money at the 22 remaining schools. Because materials costs have risen, the scope of work at each school must be trimmed. That work is still ongoing.

Even after being released from working on future phases, Fanning Howey continued to do work for the district on the first phase of projects.

District e-mails blamed Fanning Howey for most of the more than $675,000 overrun in the building of the new preschool center, including misplaced doors that didn't meet state construction codes and had to be moved, e-mails show.

District administrators have refused in past interviews to identify how much money they feel Fanning Howey's errors cost the district.

However, in an Oct. 23, 2006 e-mail from Dykema Gosset lawyer Michelle Leveque to Piggott, Leveque said she presented Fanning Howey with more than $525,000 of errors, with more being added to the district's claims.

On Wednesday, Roberts declined to say how much, if any, the district had knocked off the district's payment to Fanning Howey to compensate for any errors by the firm.